Coppers Context, and Conjoints: A Reassessment of Tam

Abstract

This study examines the role and explanatory value of context-, task-and informationrelated characteristics vis-a-vis individual characteristics in relation with respect to the adoption of mobile technologies and applications. We combine insights from adoption and acceptance literature with media choice and task-technology fit theories. These insights are applied to a case in which police officers use mobile communication tools and information technologies. Officers were asked which mobile applications they preferred to use in specific situations (contexts) and for specific tasks. In a structural equation model focusing exclusively on individual TAM-related characteristics, such as perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use, as well as on a generic media fit concept, the explanatory value of these concepts turns out to be high. We extend our study, based on Ajzen and Madden (1986) by arguing that, in addition to personal characteristics, contextual characteristics, in combination with task-related characteristics, play an important role in people's preferences for specific technologies. Conjoint analysis focusing on contextual and task-related characteristics yields relevant insights. When contextrelated and individual characteristics are combined into a single hierarchical linear model, the significance of the concepts used in TAM turns out to be low, while context-related issues stand out. On the basis of our research, we conclude that TAM models are too generic to fully explain people's intention to use mobile technologies. Future research should aim at developing models that take contextual and task-related factors into account when studying mobile applications.

Mobile Travel Services: The Effect of Moderating Context Factors

“…more difficult concepts, like mobility, physical, and social context, are less likely to be researched, which is why the results of this study are highly relevant. the need for the conceptualization of context, specifically in light of the mobile nature is broadly acknowledged (Basole, 2004;Bouwman & van de wijngaert, 2009;Kakihara & Sørensen, 2001;mallat et al, 2009).…”

“…Finally, the tAm was developed to predict people's intention to use a technology based on their perception of its ease of use and usefulness (Davis, 1989;Venkatesh & Davis, 2000;Venkatesh, morris, Davis, & Davis, 2003). the tAm model has been criticized for not taking user context into account (Bouwman & van de wijngaert, 2009;tan, Foo, Goh, & theng, 2009), an oversight that this article is intended to remedy by including context-related concepts. more specifically, this article explores the moderating roles of (1) mobility, defined as being mobile, (2) physical context, defined as social standards and norms with regard to the use of mobile devices in specific locations, and (3) social settings, defined as either being alone or in other people's company.…”

“…Bouwman and van de wijngaert (2009) have demonstrated that tAm models are too generic in nature to fully explain people's intention when it comes to using mobile technologies, because context-related factors as well as factors related to the tasks people intend to carry out appeared to be more relevant. tAm should be extended and complemented by including additional, context-related factors that may be especially significant to the adoption of mobile travel services.…”

Mobile technology in mobile work: contradictions and congruencies in activity systems

“…These studies have focused on its early use as a 'low-tech' innovation in the 1990's (Manning, 1996), the acceptance of mobile technology (Bouwman & van de Wijngaert, 2009) and the rhythms of interaction between mobile technology mediated work and physical work (Sørensen & Pica, 2005). One theme extracted from these studies is that the mobility characteristic inscribed in the technology is harmonious in many ways with the activity of front-line police.…”

Technology-enabled division of labour: the use of handhelds

“…That fi nding fi ts in a broader pattern, namely the relative neglect of studies into the uses of technologies (Barley and Kunda, 2001). There is an abundance of studies about the design (Caus et al, 2009;Lingfen et al, 2010) or the acceptance and use of electronic or mobile systems (Bouwman and Van de Wijngaert, 2009;Gerpott and Kornmeier, 2009), using theories that try to explain the processes underlying the acceptance and adoption of technology (Bayerl, 2010), but these fail to address work organisation and job structure issues. Orlikowski and Scott (2008, pp.435-436) mention several reasons for this sorry state of affairs:…”